Pro-Tunnel Group Funded by Downtown Businesses

That actually looks like a pretty diverse coalition to me. Arts groups, museums, local businesses, and even a guy named Vlad!

By the way why no coverage of the fact that even the guy who wrote the language people wrongly claim puts Seattle on the hook for over-runs says it does no such thing?
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews…

Ye Olde Curiosity Shop is hoping to acquire McGinn's shrunken head at the conclusion of this mess perhaps.

Might make City Council rethink their position on the display of cadavers…

If the Tunnel+Transit coalition learned just how poorly SDOT's design for rebuilding Alaskan Way would manage traffic, they'd have second thoughts. I'd go through the drill one more time to explain the design's incredible shortcomings, but Seattle's know-it-all activists aren't able to handle the truth. Aside from the expected Alaskan Way gridlock, the new Promenade will include at least 2 large parking lots, just what certain members of this coalition wanted.

Erica, you may have missed the process but there was something known as the Alaskan Way Viaduct Stakeholder Advisory Committee, which overwhelmingly supported the tunnel alternative after a year and half of long technical meetings. If you look on the roster you will see where this new group grew out of:

http://wadot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/EA8D93BF-A5A7-…

Minus the 5 sourpusses that are still angry that their unworkable surface plan was rejected, of course. You’ll need to find a real conspiracy, this one is the result of a completely public process.

I call bullshit. The stakeholders chose the I-5-Surface-Transit and an elevated as the two preferred options; they did not endorse the tunnel. You are lying and rewriting history.

Just so you know, nobody changes their mind based on comments to a blog post.

Good lord, “Tunnel + Transit” is a silly name. BTW your “funny irony” isn't irony to people who figure the overrun clause is purposely toothless.

The King County Labor Council is not a “business”. It is not even an association of businesses, like the chamber or the MIC. But not surprising that it is painted with the same brush, given that the writer hates unions. It is a masterful display of ignorance.

Somehow I think that a group of professionals may have paid attention to that. Are you a professional engineer that is qualified to have an opinion on the structural integrity of the tunnel. Or are you an armchair quarterback like the rest of us?

I think they're aware of it sirkulat. But please, go through the drill (or point to the direction of your previous labors).

Wow. You must be god. You know how every reader will respond to informative blog posts. Or, maybe you're just projecting onto my posts the way you feel readers respond to yours? Yeah, that's probably more like it. So, what's your position on the Tunnel, Zigg? Nevermind. You probably know already how I'll respond. Or, do you???

You need to get your news from a reliable source, not an e-rag like Publicola. Erica makes the same claim over and over in what is starting to sound downright Goebbelian, and yet she is unable to produce a list of these mysterious stakeholders who supported the surface option. The fact is that the tunnel + transit option came directly out of the stakeholder process. Tunnel Fact. Real Tunnel Fact.

Where's the information on that decision by the stakeholders? I would like to review history

Ugh. I fully support entering into a contractual agreement to force these downtown business owners to pay for 100% of tunnel cost overruns. They are the only ones benefitting from it, they should pay for it.

The Surface/Transit option has less environmental impact than the DBT because it contains the displaced traffic to Alaskan Way and upgrades I-5 and transit service.

The DBT displaces SR99 traffic, (as much as 63,000 of 110,000 vehicles daily), through South Lake Union, Lower Queen Anne, the Denny Way and Westlake/Nickerson corridors as well as Alaskan Way.

It's an engineering fundamenatl that access to SR99 in Lower Belltown should be retained. Tunnelite best achieves all goals.

“But, it would bothah motorists dahling, and we simply cahn't have that! Why, they might stop making payments, and then weyah would owah future investment funds come fwum? Owah lovely cash cow garage dream will burst, dontchu know. The horror!”

The stakeholder group OFFICIALLY put forward the I-5-Surface-Transit and an elevated as the two preferred options at the end of the process and WSDOT and SDOT signed off on them as the two alternatives that best meet the criteria. The DBT was not even studied as part of the process because in the words of David Dye (paraphrasing here), it was “too expensive and risky to be worthy of consideration.” At the end of the process the stakeholders were unofficially asked if they would consider studying a DBT if the I-5-Surface-Transit resulted in gridlock (which the analysis showed would not occur) and they said sure, why not. This is fact, from the stakeholders and from reality; not from the bullshit PR put out by Tayloe and the folks at the Chamber.

Really, so does that apply across the board for projects, services, etc, or just the ones you oppose?

My position on the tunnel has nothing to do with the fact that your comments about how “know-it-all” people won't listen to you, aren't going to win any support for your theories.

Just saying that most people, when they aren't unconsciously cherry-picking information that confirms their pre-existing opinions, tend to incorporate reliable sources of information into their decision-making.

As opposed to someone with a cartoon character avatar making off-topic comments.

Just the projects I oppose that damage the people of the city. Toxic dumps, testing chemicals on children, more roads for cars, etc.

That is the next battle, and on that one this pro-tunnel person will likely be behind McGinn in fighting to keep Alaskan Way one lane in each direction with bike lanes and ideally a street car. I'd be fine with parking lots at the far south end of the waterfront.

I suppose it depeds on one's definition of damage; I agree about testing chemicals on children though, didn't know that was in practice but should definitely be stopped.

What if they're all electric cars or hybrids though? You can't get rid of roads, sorry, it's a necessity for business particularly in a big city.

I read the ST article and it kind of made me sad to think that a representative could so poorly express his intent in writing. No wonder we have so much litigation in this world, laws are poorly written.

I'm pro-tunnel and believe that we should make the new waterfront with as much open space and as few as cars as possible; if not, we might as well rebuilt the viaduct or make alaska way a highway. An open waterfront is what drives a lot of my support for the tunnel.

Actually, what really happened was that the stakeholders reacted strongly and negatively when the two options you mention were put forward. They insisted that the deep bored tunnel be studied properly and when it had been most of them endorsed it. If it wasn't for the stakeholders the deep bored tunnel would never have been selected, that is a fact. Probably another elevated would be under construction right now. You should be thankful to those on the committee who supported a civic solution even if their interests were not best served by the outcome, especially the industrial community.

@tvguide; so far publicola is a far more reputable source than you. Both you and @Stacy should provide links to substantiating matter (not just a list of members).

Me too. The tunnel is the only way we avoid a highway down the waterfront.

Funny, you and I are more alike than I ever thought: I too think everyone should just do what I think and not do what I oppose.

Paul Allen/Seahawks representation probably explains a lot of Foster Pepper's prominent involvement in this.

I'm pretty sure being by far the #1 cause of death for every age group under 40 counts as “damage.” Unless you consider something more damaging to children and young adults than all disease COMBINED to be non-damaging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Causes_of_dea…

Meanwhile, cities around the world of all sizes have stronger business climates than Seattle and yet have a fraction of our car commute percentage.

I'm pretty sure being by far the #1 cause of death for every age group under 40 counts as “damage.” Unless you consider something more damaging to children and young adults than all disease COMBINED to be non-damaging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Causes_of_dea…

Meanwhile, cities around the world of all sizes have stronger business climates than Seattle and yet have a fraction of our car commute percentage.

Are you guys kidding me?!?! If you're going to be pro-tunnel, please go look at the proposal you're supporting.

The tunnel DOESN'T WORK with only a two-lane Alaskan Way. It puts 50-60,000 vehicle trips on the surface that are not surrently there.

Is that per year or per month? Where does one find those facts?

Here you go then…

This Times article details the eight scenarios that were studied by the stakeholders and brought out to public meetings. Please note that only one of them is a bored tunnel, is not the currently proposed tunnel, and was later rejected.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews…

And here's the comments of a pro-tunnel stakeholder at the end of the process, who confirms what final two scenarios were put forward, and mentions our current proposal, which had just been offered at the last moment and had not been fully studied yet.

http://westseattleblog.com/2008/12/alaskan-way-…

Please see links directly above…

I'll listen to the Tunnel ” + Transit” Coalition when they lobby for the actual transit. So far, there is no money for transit improvements, and the Governor vetoed one of our options for getting more transit money.

Riigghht…..and it's my pencil's fault for mispelled words. I'm sure alcohol isn't a factor in any of those deaths, or speeding, or a whole host of other reasons, it's not the CAR'S fault – unless you had a prius problem, then that's a different story.

What your graph says is that if you're under 40 and driving you're more likely to die in a car accident than if you are over 40, probably because older folks tend to excerise caution whilst driving; meanwhile the younger folks want to go as fast as possible, drive carelessly, etc. Cell phones most likely have something to do with those statistics as well. Maybe movies like “fast and the furious” don't set the best example for the younger folks.

I'm not sure I buy your second part. I'm sure you're doing your part by not owning a car or ever driving one but many people cannot function in life w/out one. I think we should be smart about our environment, protect it, preserve it, etc, but I'm also trying to be realistic about it.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/50E8559F-2…

http://www.governor.wa.gov/news/2008-12-18_viad…

thank you

Because they have good transit systems. We don't.

That's my point… I'm not blaming drivers. It's clearly the city, county, and state's fault for not building transit systems or bike and pedestrian infrastructure.

If you're over 40 you start dying from more natural causes – cancer, heart disease, and stroke. The graph is a percentage of deaths. Even though more older people die from cars, EVERYONE over 40 dies of something. Almost all deaths of people under 40 are preventable except for rare and tragic diseases.

I'm not blaming car drivers… the way to reduce car dependancy is for the government to invest in transit systems and bike/pedestrian infrastructure. We're spending essentially nothing on bike/pedestrian infrastructure and mostly symbolic transit systems (that are extremely expensive due to the tunnels).

It would be almost impossible to have a greater mandate to invest in bike/ped/transit than electing Mike McGinn. Yet the city is spending almost $1 billion on a car-only tunnel project (including widening car lanes and building more free parking spaces) and essentially nothing on bike/ped/transit infrastructure.

I don't care what people do. Go shoot ducks from the back of your Hummer H2. I'm talking about the government. The government should protect public safety, the environment, and social justice. The tunnel project damages all three while costing Seattle residents over $1,000 per person (not including overruns, state, port, or federal contributions).

The drill on the Alaskan Way design shortcomings 'posits' that because thru-traffic isn't separated from motorists looking to park, the result is an additional traffic problem that further assures traffic gridlock between Pike and King Streets, and, this 'congested body' of traffic continues through Lower Belltown. The DBT (deep bore tunnel) will create a conservative estimate of approximately 20,000 additional vehicles daily to Alaskan Way.

Early designs (pre-Crunican), called for a 2-lane frontage road on the east side with islands between it and a 4-lane Alaskan Way. Without this frontage road, motorists looking to park are forced back onto Alaskan Way.

With the frontage road, sufficient curbside parking is created; motorists looking to park are able to avoid re-entering Alaskan Way; the islands are much like the existing setup that allows a separate bikepath, streetcar line and even east/west bus lines near Coleman Dock; and at least 3 'super-islands' at Columbia, Washington and Seneca can be created to reduce the number of stoplights from 13 to 9 or 10 which increases thru-put capacity and speed, and makes it simpler and safer to enter/exit Coleman Dock.

Unfortunately, the frontage road reduces the width of the proposed Wide Plaza Promenade. It all depends upon whether Seattle is serious about managing Alaskan Way traffic, or, serving the commercial interests of waterfront business who'd rather provide their most highly valued customers with their very own parking spot in the Promenade.

Through many years of planning, SDOT misled Seattle's environmental community to believe the waterfront streetcar line could be installed through the middle of the Wide Plaza Promenade, knowing full well that such a route was operationally difficult and a hazard for pedestrians. I believe SDOT did this to serve business interests who'd already declared their preferrence for Promenade parking lots.

I'm absolutely for a viaduct-free Alaskan Way, but oppose the DBT because it displaces too much traffic there and onto South Lake Union, Lower Queen Anne, the Denny Way and Westlake/Nickerson corridor, and Lower Belltown. All studies show that the cut/cover Tunnelite displaces the least traffic onto Alaskan Way and the other districts.

I also support Tunnelite because Seattle motorists and businesses would suffer through the inconvenience of its construction disruption as a kind of penance for being total assholes.

Those facts, AS, are referred to in The Stranger article “What could possibly go wrong?” and are taken from official studies. The DBT displaces approximately 63,000 of its current 110,000 vehicles daily. Approximately 40,000 displaced vehicles are headed via Lower Belltown ramps to Magnolia, Ballard, Interbay and West Seattle. Maybe 10,000 are displaced from their usual access to downtown via the Columbia and Seneca ramps. The conservative estimate I use for additional traffic on Alaskan Way is 20,000+ more vehicles than currently, not neglecting the new stoplight setup that congests that amount of traffic into gridlock.

It is interesting that Nick Licata is wanting to write the same legislation from the Seattle side but it is crystal clear what Licata is trying to do.

The 50000 vehicles per DAY are the viaduct traffic that is going to/from downtown (which will not be served by the tunnel): “approximately 17,000 vehicles enter or exit downtown at Columbia and Seneca streets, and 33,000 exit or enter at Elliott and Western avenues”
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Viaduct/Questi…

How did McGinn (105492 votes, 51.14%) vs. Mallahan (98302 votes, 47.65% — http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/200911/Res…) demonstrate a mandate for anything? And besides, the issues, including “bicycles,” are more complex than that. I ride a bike for nearly all my travel, but I think that McGinn is wrong on most issues, though fortunately incompetent as well. Mandate, shmandate.

A coalition of downtown business and downtown interests does not want gridlock on downtown streets? They're working to make sure that there's a viable transportation alternative for cars/trucks that doesn't clog I-5 or downtown streets?

I'm shocked something like this would occur!

Except their “solution” dumps significantly more traffic on to the surface street grid. Read above comments, no reason to repeat them – but the DBT is no panacea for downtown surface street traffic. Quite the opposite.

Easy. There are videos of all the stakeholder meetings, but I suggest you go to this one near the end of the process (12/11/2008):

http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos/video.asp?…

This meeting eventually lead to the tunnel and transit solution by our elected leaders (not the stakeholders, who were in an advisory capacity) about a month later.

Then you should have caught the end of the council meeting on Monday where Tom Rasmussen stated to WSDOT that Seattle still expects transit support.
I guess Erica shoulda reported every word said, and not count the number of people that spoke and then left, and are painfully misinformed about the efforts people are making.

I got a teevee, that's how I knowd so dang much.

If you are interested you should not rely on the mediation channels to edit for click-driving snips.

because what he says doesn't count, it's what the law says that counts, and he's backtracking due to McGinn's pressure.

that's why.

Which is why I wish McGinn was spending his time on the Ballard/West Seattle light rail measure instead of this. Get crosstown traffic underground and get the rest on transit as much as possible.

The tunnel is our best shot at a great waterfront. The surface proposal puts much more on city streets.

And the law in question puts no obligation on the City itself nor imposes a tax.

Seattle doesn't need another tunnel plan it already has one. Maybe you can convince Portland to buy your design, but Seattle doesn't need it.

The another “solution” is to take down the viaduct and dump ALL of the traffic onto the surface street grid. A 46% reduction is better than 0%.

“Goebbelian”

Is this the first time a Publicola discussion has been Godwinned?

The DBT is terribly engineered, incurs horrific environmental impact, is extremely risky and most likely all AWV replacement options to be most expensive. The DBT could be a catastrophic failure in its construction and in an earthquake or an explosive traffic accident. Its potential for failure is inexplicably absent from serious public discourse.

Interesting that out of those 10 groups there are 0 transit advocacy organizations. Actually there is only one organization that solely works on transportation policy (the Cascadia Institute) and they focus on intercity rail, passenger ferries, and tunnels. So in the transit and tunnel group the transit is pretty much missing. Not to mention that in the proposal the transit funding component disappeared two years ago and is nowhere to be found.

That assumes you ignore the analysis that WSDOT and SDOT did which indicates that with the transit investment we need to make anyway, many of those trips go away or change modes. Surface PLUS TRANSIT was always the plan. Folks got obsessed with the “OMG! So many cars on the street!” meme that they ignored the rest.